You have yet to tell me exactly HOW the "meat and potatoes of most religions are the same".

Or maybe, you are just here to throw rocks instead of engaging in actual dialogue.

Sure, Ill try.
Be hard for me as I think all religions are for weak minded people that need outside Influence to give them Direction.

That's not any "explanation" at all. It is rocks being thrown by a bitter, angry, resentful, fatalistic human being.

"Meat and Potatoes" of them all,Is the Master Creator, a Higher Being, Unseen, Unheard , but is all knowing , (sounds silly I know)

Not all of them make those claims.

Didn't you know that?

Oh, sorry, I thought you thought you are an expect that knows everything perfectly.

I guess I was wrong about that.

That is true, there are some religions such as Taoism that explain a way of life that leads to a particular outcome. I prefer these as they are
logically sound and the existence of a deity is irrelevant.

In my opinion, the function of a deity in a religion is to give a personification of the religion's values. Some people think that Christianity
actually has origins in extra-terrestrial... mythology.

Well, how do you explain the existence of Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Episcopalian ism?

Short answer.....SIN.

Now, if you want the historical development of those divisions, as well as others within the big umbrella of Christendom, that will take a long time,
but I can explain it.

Well, you might as well.

edit on 22-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Here is a little longer explanation.

At the start of the Church, there were no divisions such as the one's you cited.

As time passes, particularly, when some men became more concerned with their own and their group's political power within the church, especially after
the late 4th century when the Roman Emperpor Theodosius I, made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, which was a terrible
mistake that had all kinds of negative consequences, there became a rivalry between the eastern churches and the western churches that led to the
split between the Roman Catholics(west) and the Greek Orthodox(east).

Then, in the 16th century the King of England, Henry the VIII, led a split with the Roman church so he could marry Anne Bolin after divorcing his
wife, creating the Church of England and it's American counterpart the Episcopal, ie-Anglican or Church of England, church. Those are just different
names meaning the same thing.

Well, how do you explain the existence of Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Episcopalian ism?

Short answer.....SIN.

Now, if you want the historical development of those divisions, as well as others within the big umbrella of Christendom, that will take a long time,
but I can explain it.

Well, you might as well.

edit on 22-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Here is a little longer explanation.

At the start of the Church, there were no divisions such as the one's you cited.

As time passes, particularly, when some men became more concerned with their own and their group's political power within the church, especially after
the late 4th century when the Roman Emperpor Theodosius I, made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, which was a terrible
mistake that had all kinds of negative consequences, there became a rivalry between the eastern churches and the western churches that led to the
split between the Roman Catholics(west) and the Greek Orthodox(east).

Then, in the 16th century the King of England, Henry the VIII, led a split with the Roman church so he could marry Anne Bolin after divorcing his
wife.

All right. So the church can be used for political reasons as well as religious ones, but -

I will allow you to agree with this: There is a philosophical message in Christianity that has merit, but sometimes it can be clouded by human sin,
like you mentioned?

And to be clear, I was interested in the history, but then I realized that thinking about it revealed how politics can get involved in
religion.

Well, how do you explain the existence of Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Episcopalian ism?

Short answer.....SIN.

Now, if you want the historical development of those divisions, as well as others within the big umbrella of Christendom, that will take a long time,
but I can explain it.

Well, you might as well.

edit on 22-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Here is a little longer explanation.

At the start of the Church, there were no divisions such as the one's you cited.

As time passes, particularly, when some men became more concerned with their own and their group's political power within the church, especially
after the late 4th century when the Roman Emperpor Theodosius I, made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, which was a
terrible mistake that had all kinds of negative consequences, there became a rivalry between the eastern churches and the western churches that led to
the split between the Roman Catholics(west) and the Greek Orthodox(east).

Then, in the 16th century the King of England, Henry the VIII, led a split with the Roman church so he could marry Anne Bolin after divorcing his
wife.

All right. So the church can be used for political reasons as well as religious ones

As I told you earlier, there have been men who claimed to be Christian who misused the Church to control people for their own self serving and selfish
purposes, but did so in contradition and in violation of the teachings of Christ and the Bible.That is why the first and short answer I gave for it
is....SIN.

I will allow you to agree with this: There is a philosophical message in Christianity that has merit, but sometimes it can be clouded by human sin,
like you mentioned?

Christianity is not about any "philosophy" or even a pragmatic way of life.

Christianity is about how horribly selfish, self serving, woefully imperfect are put in right standing with God.

And to be clear, I was interested in the history, but then I realized that thinking about it revealed how politics can get involved in
religion.

edit on 22-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Politics is about power and authority to rule over others.

Any time SIN is the central factor, anything can be perverted. And as I said earlier, if you read it. that was the case in the Dark Ages, I am sad to
say, but was in contradiction to Christ and God.

I also am unable to pick a side. I did a political compass test online and it scored me about -3.25/-3.33 for liberal/libertarian on a scale of +10
-10. However, I've voted for republicans and democrats and independents. But the larger issue is anytime I contemplate picking a side I always find
something about them I don't like. I'm the kind of person that's never content with whoever is in power. I'll switch sides from one election to
another. I see the political parties as tools.

Nobody is perfect. We're all flawed. This is why I see wisdom in moderation. The error is made when you start to believe that you're better. That
you're not flawed. That you're correct. This is when you choose a side. So rather than moderating between the two, you become partisan.

When it comes to personal tastes I'm unshakeable. An extremist. But things like governments scare me. The thought that I would be unshakeable doesn't
sit well with me intellectually. I know I'm a flawed person. I stick to myself. I moderate because I know that I am not wise enough to rely on my own
knowledge. I'm a runt, you know. If it weren't for necessity, I'd block everyone out like a child. Sometimes I wonder if the tables were turned and I
was rich and my confidence was high would I feel the opposite? Instead of hesitating, would I be partisan? Maybe low confidence plays a
role.

You have yet to tell me exactly HOW the "meat and potatoes of most religions are the same".

Or maybe, you are just here to throw rocks instead of engaging in actual dialogue.

Sure, Ill try.
Be hard for me as I think all religions are for weak minded people that need outside Influence to give them Direction.

That's not any "explanation" at all. It is rocks being thrown by a bitter, angry, resentful, fatalistic human being.

"Meat and Potatoes" of them all,Is the Master Creator, a Higher Being, Unseen, Unheard , but is all knowing , (sounds silly I know)

Not all of them make those claims.

Didn't you know that?

Oh, sorry, I thought you thought you are an expect that knows everything perfectly.

I guess I was wrong about that.

That is true, there are some religions such as Taoism that explain a way of life that leads to a particular outcome.

That is pragmatism. But does not answer the great existential questions of life.

I prefer these as they are logically sound and the existence of a deity is irrelevant

Sure, lots and lots of people do not want there to be a Supreme Creator Being that they are accountable to.

In my opinion, the function of a deity in a religion is to give a personification of the religion's values.

Christianity does not do that.

Some people think that Christianity actually has origins in extra-terrestrial... mythology.

edit on 22-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no
reason given)

Yeah, and some people think that the earth is hollow too.

So?

Do you have an actual point?

Uh, yes. My point was that either the deities involved could refer to extra-terrestrial war generals, or I was also going to point out that there is
the possibility that when Christianity is referring to the Holy Spirit, it is referring to the universal consciousness.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
I also am unable to pick a side. I did a political compass test online and it scored me about -3.25/-3.33 for liberal/libertarian on a scale of +10
-10. However, I've voted for republicans and democrats and independents. But the larger issue is anytime I contemplate picking a side I always find
something about them I don't like. I'm the kind of person that's never content with whoever is in power. I'll switch sides from one election to
another. I see the political parties as tools.

Nobody is perfect. We're all flawed. This is why I see wisdom in moderation. The error is made when you start to believe that you're better. That
you're not flawed. That you're correct. This is when you choose a side. So rather than moderating between the two, you become partisan.

When it comes to personal tastes I'm unshakeable. An extremist. But things like governments scare me. The thought that I would be unshakeable
doesn't sit well with me intellectually.

edit on 22-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

You have a strong head on your shoulders. These are some of the wisest words I've read. No one is perfect, and moderation is a very good way to live
life. In addition, believing that you are correct is the choice that makes you unable to find the correct solution because you are blinded by a belief
and not looking at reality.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.